After reading this piece I found that I have to some what disagree with what is being said. I am of course aware that I can not deny the facts. It was stated that students now rather than the 1960s study much less and have much less work. Does that really mean they are learning less? This new technological age as brought to the world a new field of knowledge. I believe that students today are smarter than they have ever been with so much to know and learn. I think that to say a study doesn’t study for 26 hours a week and read 45 pages of a book per week is more uneducated than someone who does is ignorant. Some people don’t need to study as long as others because they are more prone to take in knowledge that is learned.
I also believe that other factors need to be brought into prospective. Students during this age are very much expected to pay for their own education or pay for most of it. For this reason many students need to have a job, whether part time or even full time. This of course cuts into the time that students have to study or read or do their homework. It is not always as easy as telling a student you need to study more rather than giving them the time to study.
My education has been very much treasured by my family and I alike. I have been doing well in college but probably don’t study as much as a I should. I have a part time job that keep me working until early morning hours and I have little time to sleep before I need to be at school again. I wish that I had the time to dedicate to my school work but for me it is just impossible. I believe that if I went to a school that I dormed at and didn’t have to worry about working I would have a lot more time to focus on my studying.
According to the article, colleges have been cutting funds going to bettering the education provided at the universities and college campuses alike. Also it is stated that most programs rate professors based on how they liked a class giving professors the enticement to give good grades for even poor performance. I think that is untrue in the case of Queens College. Many students rate their professors not based on the grade they received but based on the intelligence of the teacher in that subject and so forth.

A state’s power has always been derived from how well it can control its people. The recent globalization of media, along with technological innovations, has had a serious impact on a state’s authority. The increased flow of ideas and information across borders threatens those states which have tried to retain a tight hold on the ideologies spread throughout their countries. Some countries regulate the flow of information in order to preserve a certain culture. However, ‘technologies of freedom’ are continually spreading ideas of democracy and freedom across the Internet, where virtually anyone can access them.
The revolutions in the Middle East are a great example of how media can spread these new ideas across states. Google, Twitter and Facebook all had a hand in promoting the democratic revolutions in the authoritarian countries of the Middle East. The youth of these countries were exposed to ideas of democracy and freedom, and finally took a stand to try to claim these rights for themselves. Egypt tried to assert its authority by shutting down its internet while these protests were occurring, but people still managed to find ways to broadcast news and individual stories. Al Jazeera was particularly effective in using satellite broadcasting to show the world what was happening in Arab countries.
We are entering a new era where the legitimacy of states and their power is being called into question. Media is having the biggest effect on this transition, allowing people to access all sorts of ideas that may not be promoted in their home country. Hopefully, the globalization of media brings about a more transparent world, based on equality and fairness.

There was a time when education was a privilege. Back then everybody did not have access to education and the ones that did took full advantage of it. Education gave people hope of having a better future. It gave people a title and prestige. But today in America everyone is entitled to an education until they reach the age of 18 and college seems more like a commodity then a privilege. Although a college education is useful its value seems to have decreased. I think overall student’s ambition and aspiration for higher education has declined over the years. But there are other factors that contribute to why undergraduate learning is so poor today.

I think the quality of undergraduate learning depends on the way professors teach and the students experience. When I went to BMCC my experience was really different than Queens College. I really enjoyed learning and did really well in all my classes in BMCC. Almost every class I took the professors was really engaging and seemed to be talking to the students rather than lecturing. The classroom sizes were small and in some classes such as biology and education all the students knew each other. I remember for some of the classes I didn’t have to read the textbook just pay attention in class and I did so well in the exams. But when I came to Queens College my GPA dropped. I am I psychology major and I remember all my classes in my first semester were in lecture halls. So the class sizes were really big and everybody seemed so distant. The professors usually stay in one area in the front of the class and lectured away. Professors barely engaged the student into the lecture. Although some professors used power point slides I found it to be very boring and I was better off not coming to class and just going to the library and reading the book. My second semester of psychology classes was the first time I read a textbook cover to cover. But in class the reading was never put to use through discussions or other activities. Although reading is part of obtaining knowledge I don’t think students retain information if they don’t actively use what they have read or put it into practice. And this is the main reason I think students do not learn much in college. It’s like learning a new language but never speaking it. You’ll forget it faster than learned it.

Another factor that contributes to poor education in today’s society is prioritizing. The authors mention that ”the average students spent only 12-13 hours studying per week which is about half the time a full time college student spent studying in 1960” I found it interesting that the authors brought this point up, because the average students life in the 1960’s is very different than the average student today. The average student in the 1960’s not only had a higher passion for learning but they also had more time on their hands to study. Today the average students are easily distracting with technology. Many students spend so much time on their phone, facebook, playing x-box360 and many other activities. Also more students work now than ever before. Students are going to school, working, maintaining a social life and taking care of other personal needs. I think that in the 1960’s there was a higher emphasize on education than there is today. Education was their first priority and there wasn’t all this advanced technology distracting them. I think today students prioritize there life based on what they enjoy rather than focus on education.

After reading the article I have to admit I am one of those students who does what I have to do to get by. I do the minimal amount of work, have a decent GPA, rarely go to class and take classes taught by professors other students have told me are easy-going (although there is a point where this is not possible anymore such as classes required to graduate or 300-level classes required for a major). I feel that a lot of this is because I look at college in a different light than most people. I plan on going to law school once I graduate and for some reason I view college as another form of high school. I feel that a lot of what I learn in college will not help me in the real world since I don’t plan on doing anything related to my major and I only need to know the material in order to do well on tests so I can have a GPA thats good enough to get me into law school. I spend more time studying for the LSATs then I do studying for any of the classes I have ever taken in college. While this obviously backfires sometimes (like with the first test in this class), it usually works out in the end. I guess this is why I haven’t learned my lesson. I do however try to take courses that I find interesting regardless of whether or not I need them to graduate (probably why I’m taking an extra semester). Its not that I don’t put in a large amount of work because I’m lazy or don’t care, its just that for some reason I don’t look at college the same way most people do.

This is only my second semester at college, but I already have a good feel of what it’s like. A lot of students don’t take college so seriously, and it results in college not being so serious. I see so many students who never attend one class and only show up for the midterm or final; to me majority of these people don’t care so much about college or think they can study for a few hours and pass. I attend all of the classes, do the work, and study so I can get the most out of my college education. I’m paying for it, so why not gain the most out of it?

It’s a mixture of the students and the professors, some students don’t take it seriosuly, and some professors don’t make the students work so hard. As was said in the article, the evaluations are soley the opinion of the students, and whether a professor is going to be higher-ed or not the next semester is based on the evaluations, and that does create a real problem. The students are running the colleges, choosing what they want and that becomes what the college experience is like. I can easily find out what professors are hard, or easy and choose to take those professors to make it easier on myself. And I know many other people do that as well, and then that class isn’t as serious, it becomes a joke. As a result, not much is gained from the class.

Even though I haven’t taken enough classes yet to fully be able to support this, most classes either don’t have so much reading or you can get by without it. And when students don’t have the reading and aren’t attending class they aren’t gaining so much out of their college education. Students tend to study for one exam, and by the next one they forget what they’ve learnt. It becomes so easy at that point to just study for the exams and do nothing else when that’s all a professor requires. I’m not saying that professors should make college tremendously harder, just possibly enough that students are able to gain something more out of it than they are currently.

I personally feel satisfied with my education at Queens College. I, however, searched on “rate my professors dot com” to see what students thought of a particular professor. So far Ive lucked out and have been fortunate to get laid back and nice professors. Most of my professors have been adjuncts so I am seeing good things coming to future Queens college students.

A poor man’s college such as Baruch or QC have nothing to hide when people say it’s one of the best. I feel there is an opportunity for every single person to get a great education and perhaps even better than a private college.
I feel some students don’t know what they are going to do in the future, so they go to college to improve their grades or to 4 year one. Everyone has different tastes, but I think with helpful counseling in Frese hall, which I’ve visited and made a couple appointments, students will know what to do for the most part for their future.

College for me is to move up the ranks, getting a degree, and hopefully find a decent job. This could not be done by the professors alone, but the students themselves. It takes a lot of effort but anyone is capable of doing well. The cuny system does help the less well-off get a good education. So there is hope for everything no matter one’s backround, religion, or nationality.

I have been in college for 3 years, and i can honestly say that not everyone takes their education seriously. There are a few factors that contribute to this. Some teachers are very laid back and they dont teach the class but would rather have debates and converstaions in class. This can be a good thing from a teachers point of view, but for those students who had to take that class as an elective, they can really care less and would just come to class to be there or just not even come. This would be why students arent learning anything. Then on the other hand, we have strict teachers that teach so everyone understands the material, but students get lazy and start thinking the material is hard, and put no effort into studying. They compare their class with another which might not even have deadlines or any papers due, and want to drop their class to take the easier professor next semester.

Some students really go to college to just go to college to proove to their parents they arent doing things they shouldnt. That would be why they dont pay attention in class and would rather just be on their laptop either on facebook, youtube, or just browsing the web and playing games. Not every student gets the pleasure of having financial aid pay for their college semesters, and i think some of these students dont take education seriously because they are not paying out of their pocket. Students just get lazier by the generation, and i think professors adapt to that, instead of teaching them how what they are learning will benefit them in the future. Professors should be training us in how to be more efficient in our majors and what a real job would expect from us. I agree that some things we learn will not have any affect on our lives, but students should try to redirect that education to things they can apply it to, to be successsful.

As a graduating undergraduate college student, I am not surprised by the information in the article stating that the overall quality of undergraduate learning is poor. There are several different reasons why one may go to college, but many people go to college for simply the wrong reasons. In the past, people chose to go to college because they actually desired to learn and use what they had learned to apply it to a career after college. Today, I feel that many people go to college because they know that without a college degree, that their chances of having a career afterwards would be almost impossible.

In the Fall of 2007, I had started my college career at SUNY Oneonta. I was unaware of the stereotypes that had coined the college as a “party school” or “Stoeneonta;” I chose to go to school there because I simply desired to study in their Pre-Veterinary program. The first night I spent in my college dorm room was not what I had expected. My roommate, that I had known for a whole 2 hours, did not come home that night. I had later found out that she was out partying with older friends of hers that were already undergraduates at the school. To my surprise, not everyone was going to college to learn. After putting up with a roommate in an unrecognised sorority who enjoyed partying every night, I decided to transfer to CUNY Queens College and to live back home with my family. Even though I may not have had the freedom I once had while living on my own away at school, I feel that now I am surrounded with more people going to school for the reasons I chose to go to school; to actually learn something.

I feel that many people, like my old roommate, go to college for the wrong reasons. In the past, more people went to college because it was a personal choice to do so. Today, everyone goes to college because everyone else they know is going to college. The overall quality of undergraduate learning is so poor because people no longer take college seriously. People watch movies and television shows about college and truly believe that college life is similar. Reality may only set in once one is thrown out of college for consistently having poor grades due to not doing work or going to class.

New research questions how much students really learn in college, as reported in a recent Op-Ed in the New York Times. The writers are Richard Arum, a professor of sociology and education at New York University, and Josipa Roksa, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, who are the authors of “Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses.”

Arum and Roksa ask: “Why is the overall quality of undergraduate learning so poor?” And they offer some explanations. I’d like to hear your thoughts about the education you’re receiving in college. If it’s poor, why do you think that’s so? You may post on the blog, or email me your thoughts (if you don’t feel like going public). I’m interested in your honest opinions. Responses will count as extra credit toward participation grades and are due by Monday, May 23.

If you’d like to respond on the blog, please make it into your own blog post to make it easier for others to read and comment. Great responses so far on this thread!

Every sport that has been played has developed significantly and has been spread throughout the world. Soccer is the world’s most popular sport. It is a national sport of most European and Latin-American countries, and of many other nations. Millions of people in more than 140 countries play soccer. A game similar to soccer was being played as a sport happening in China during the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC. In China, it was during the Han dynasty that people dribbled leather balls by kicking it into a small net. Recorded facts also support the fact that Romans and Greeks used to play a game in which two teams tried to score by advancing the ball across a line on the field. The players passed the ball to one another but did not kick it.
It is said that the modern soccer played today grew during the early 1800’s many English schools played a game that resembled soccer. The players added many rules that changed the game as it developed, but each school interpreted the rules differently. In 1848, an association of school representatives met at Trinity College in Cambridge and drew up the first set of soccer rules. In 1863, representatives of English soccer clubs founded the Football Association, soccer began to spread throughout the world in the late 1800’s. By 1900, associations had been established in Belgium, Chile, Demark, Italy, The Netherlands and Switzerland. In 1904, the national associations founded the (FIFA) Federation Internationale de Football Association. The Canadian Soccer Association was established in 1912, and the United States Soccer Federation was set up in 1913. In 1930, the first World Cup Championship was played in Montevideo, Uruguay. Since then, the World Cup has been held every four years except during World War II (1939-1945), when the games were suspended.
The first professional soccer league in the United States, the American Soccer League, was formed in 1921 but disbanded in 1929. The present American Soccer League was founded in 1931. The North American Soccer League was established in 1967. During the 1970’s soccer in the United States grew tremendously as a spectator and participant sport. As this sport spread, the FIFA World Cup became more and more important. It is said that this is the worlds most widely viewed sporting event. My family is from Colombia a country in which everyone plays soccer in their free time. In Colombia the term for soccer is “futbol” and it is often confused for American Football since they sound so much alike. Even though the breakdown of the origin of soccer is so long, FIFA is known worldwide. Every four years this event takes place in a different part of the world. The last World Cup took place last year in South Africa where Spain was the winner and the anthem song of the game was sung by Shakira. Overall this sport has developed rapidly and is now one of the most played and viewed sport considering that there are teams from all over the world representing their countries.

As the world evolves, we are constantly being hidden by the truth and what’s really going on around us. Not only does the media take part in this but so does the government, and it is shown through newspaper articles, the internet and the social networks. One of the issues of todays society is that we are not being exposed to the truth. Religion also plays a major role in what is allowed to be shown and this is clearly portrayed in the Hasidic newspaper Di Tzeitung. This is a Yiddish newspaper that is sold in an ultra orthodox neighbor in Brooklyn that excluded Hillary Clinton from being in the “Situation Room” picture as well as another female. This photo is a huge deal especially for history and for a newspaper to go and edit it is morally incorrect.

In the interview with the publisher Albert Freidman, he gave his apologies to the white house and state departments. He claims that the picture was not suppose to be published in the first place and that the editor did not read the fine print in the iconic picture where Hillary Clinton goes missing. Friedman states that although women are respected, due to Jewish Laws and modesty they are not allowed to publish pictures of woman. They believe that women are a distraction but they are not inferior. In the area in Brooklyn where the newspaper is sold, it is a strict orthodox neighborhood that even has signs to remind the women that tight clothing and dresses and skirts below the knee are forbidden. This newspaper tried to censor the image of women in their picture which would have been understandable if they weren’t properly dressed because it would go against the religion but they were appropriate.

This kind of liberty with history shows a complete disconnect with humanity, reality and the truth. It puts into question what they believe and whether or not they took her out of the picture simply because she is a woman and they don’t like the idea of a woman with that much political power. They said it was not with intentions to project those kinds of opinions but pictures speak louder than words. The editor of this newspaper literally erased the existence of women in the “situation room” where Obama and other high-ranking government and military officials watched the raid of Osama Bin laden. Freidman reminded us that there is not only freedom of press but also freedom of religion and that they have to abide by laws and modesty. However, does this really give the media the right to remove Hillary Clinton and another woman from this Historic event? This scandalous photograph can be questionable about whether or not we are really moving forward.

The creolization of western clothing really seemed interesting to me. Western clothing has impacted so many people on a global level that I feel this is a great topic. Many people all over the world had their own clothing that they would wear to go along with their customs. Whether it be the Japanese and their kimono’s, Indians’ dhoti, Muslims kurta and kufi hats ect., every culture had their own way of dressing. It was not until the early nineteenth century where western clothing really started to make an impact on the world. This creolization of western clothing had a huge impact on society.

Western clothing in a way started out from pilgrims and immigrants. Later it was changed and influenced by British clothing. The first tie was invented in 1880 by a English man named George Bryan Brummell. He invented the “business suit” dark coat/pants, black shoes and clean white neck cloth. This was later brought over to the U.S and worn by wealthy business men. This totally changed how people dressed. This “uniform business look” changed the way people dressed all over the world and made it a symbol of both neatness and wealth. The influence it had on the world is impressive and unbelievable. With travel and trade this quickly spread to countries all over the world.

Another example that I can think of is the shell-toe Adidas sneakers worn by the Rap group Run DMC. These pioneers of rap/hip hop music went into a store to buy these shoes. Since they were the newest shoes out they could not wait and had to wear them right away. The salesman forgot to lace the sneakers and the group put the shoes on anyway and started walking around the city. Soon word spread that not only where those the “it” sneakers but there was also a specific way you had to wear them…loose with no laces. Although funny this style spread to Europe and all over the globe due to MTV and the spread of television media.

This creolization of western clothing was heavily influenced by travel, movies and the spread of pop culture. It is a staple of the modern day “uniform business look” and trendy styles. Western clothing has spread all around the world and has influenced so many cultures, most of the world sporting these styles today.

WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. They publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of their sources anonymous. They do this through a web site. I personally think that this is brilliant and one of the best tools and resources to get REAL news.

You can’t believe everything you read in the media so WikiLeaks is a great resource that people can use. This is important to everyone because people have the right to know the difference of what their government is really doing and what they say they are doing. Every citizen has that expected, natural curiosity of what is going on in their country or another country for that matter. You cannot just rely on one source of news these days so it is important that people keep up to date and on top of what the government is really doing, especially with all the censorship of the media.

I think it is great because it exposes the governments which are not doing the right thing and in turn give people a better perspective on how governments are actually being run. They are doing something many people are not, which is telling the truth.

The site Wikileaks, founded by Julian Assange, has been cancelled many times. What is Wikileaks? “Wikileaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public….We publish material of ethical, political, and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices.” Thanks to information provided by Wikileaks the public is able to find out information that is not released by the media. Steven Aftergood disagrees, he believes that Wikileaks invades privacy and “has launched a sweeping attack not simly on corruption, but on secrecy itself.” In my opinion, people have a right to know what is occurring in the government of their country. Although I understand that sometimes it is beneficial to keep things hidden, there are times when people have a right to the information as well.

In the video “Teach Your Children” by Crosby Stills Nash Young, it starts out by portraying a poor Middle Eastern community. It features the American soldiers caring for young children by holding them, providing them with food and smiling down at them. At 44 seconds the video shows a father teaching his sons how to use a gun. It shows how societies cultures truly differ from one another. In America many young children are forbidden to play with toy guns yet in their culture, young children are taught how to use a real gun. The video continues to show how children in America play in playgrounds and swim in pools. The children in the Middle East are constantly exposed to violence. The video truly shows how American society differs from Middle Eastern cultures, values and expectations.

The Yes men are two or sometimes 3 men who would pull pranks of government officials or companies to get their point across about certain situations in todays world. A recent prank they had pulled was on the oil company Chevron. Chevron has a new slogan “We Agree” which is a very ironic and I think bad slogan. Chevron has been mistreating and mispaying its employees in nations such as Ecuador and Nigeria.

The Yes man had made a spoof “We Agree” website before Chevron was able to create one that had new and improved ad’s. Chevron and the fake website went back and forth throughout the day arguing about what is going on in Ecuador. Many companies had fell for the spoof website and some companies even used mission statements from the spoof website to describe Chevron. The Yes men had done what Chevron spends millions on every year, to spoof the media.

I believe what the Yes men are doing is a great thing. They are shedding light on topics not many people would know about because of the stranglehold the media is under from Chevron. As we all know, money makes this world go around. When millions upon millions of dollars are put in front of your face to not say something, it is hard to say no. This is what Chevron would do to these media companies so they would not rat them out on their mistreating of its employees and earth with its hazerdous materials. The Yes Men are doing something that many people could not do which is tell the public the true story behind some situations. I believe Chevron is a terrible company for trying to cover up their lies by spending money to pursuade the media.